On January 20, 2012, I posted an article on the notice requirements for board and committee meetings for homeowners associations, by parsing the statute into somewhat simpler components. The requirements for condos are similar to HOAs, but not identical. As I previously stated, Florida’s Sunshine Law does not apply to community associations. However, the condo association statutes resemble provisions in the Sunshine law, in F.S. 718.112 (2)(c)3. The statutory exceptions are the same as with HOAs. However, the types of meetings that must be open to members and properly noticed vary significantly. These differences are subtle but important to recognize.

Condos have the same statutory exceptions as HOAs:
a. Meetings between the board or a committee and the association’s attorney, with respect to proposed or pending litigation, if the meeting is held for the purpose of seeking or rendering legal advice; or
b. Board meetings held for the purpose of discussing personnel matters.

As with HOAs, three types of condo meetings require proper notice and must be open to all members, absent some exception as stated above.

A board meeting at which a quorum is present –
(1) Meetings of the board of administration at which a quorum of the board members is present are open to all unit owners.

**This is practically the same as for HOAs. Some might argue that the condo version would include the possibility that a meeting could be held with less than a quorum of directors and be closed. That is not a sound argument, because business cannot be conducted without a quorum. Therefore, without an applicable exception, all board meetings must be open.

And two types of meetings that may contain less than a quorum of directors
(2) Meetings of a committee to take final action on behalf of the board or make recommendations to the board regarding the association budget.

**This is different than the rule for HOAs. With HOAs, open meetings are required where a final decision is made regarding the expenditure of association funds. With condos, any committee meeting that takes final action on behalf of the board must be open. In addition, committees that make recommendations to the board regarding budgets (not expenditures) trigger the open meeting requirement.

(3) Meetings of a committee that does not take final action on behalf of the board or make recommendations to the board regarding the association budget are subject to this section, unless those meetings are exempted from this section by the bylaws of the association.

**This is also different from the committee provision in condos. Interestingly, the condo statute requires all committee meetings to be open, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. The only exception to that is where a committee takes final action on the association budget — in that case, the meeting must be open, regardless of the language of the bylaws. In contrast, HOAs only require an open meeting (1) where a final decision is made regarding the expenditure of association funds and (2) where any body is vested with the power to approve or disapprove architectural decisions with respect to a parcel (or unit). This makes sense, given that condo owners would necessarily have fewer opportunities to choose an architectural design.

A healthy community association will be as transparent as legally possible, and not look for excuses to hold secret meetings or hide the ball from homeowners. This is a recipe for trouble. Conversely, there are valid and important reasons to ensure that privilege is protected. Where attorney-client privilege exists, the meetings should be closed – as long as the attorney is participating in the meeting.

Florida’s government should be in the “sunshine” – citizens must be given the opportunity to know what is going on when their elected leaders meet. That is no less true of associations.

DONNA DIMAGGIO BERGER is a Shareholder with the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff. She has represented all types of shared ownership communities throughout Florida over the last two decades and has worked closely with the Legislature to shape the laws that govern private residential communities.

LISA MAGILL is a shareholder in Becker & Poliakoff's statewide Community Association Law practice group. She has been a leader of and active in various organizations dedicated to community association issues, especially outreach and education.

LINDSAY RAPHAEL a partner with Tripp Scott, focuses her practice on condominium and homeowners association matters, as well as property financing and transaction counsel to buyers, sellers, lenders and developers of residential and commercial real estate. She is a regular contributor to Condo Management Magazine.

JEAN WINTERS has focused on representation of both community associations and homeowners living in associations since 2006. She is a partner at Winters & Winters, P.A. The firm has more than 30 years of combined experience in real property law.

The information and materials on this blog are provided for general informational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice. Being general in nature, the information provided may not apply to your specific factual or legal set of circumstances. No attorney-client relationship is formed nor should any such relationship be implied. Nothing on this blog is intended to substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal advice, please consult with a competent attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.